The Senate is likely to vote Sunday on a compromise measure that would cut spending and raise the national borrowing limit

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced late Saturday the first glint of hope in the debt-ceiling saga, delaying a scheduled 1:01 a.m. Sunday cloture vote to give negotiators in Congress and the White House more time to reach a compromise.

"I'm confident that a final agreement that adopts the Senate's long-term approach rather than the short-term, Band-Aid proposed by House of Representatives will move forward," Reid said.

Reid moved the vote to 1 p.m. Sunday and did so with no Republican objections -- a sign the GOP shared Reid's new-found optimism about a potential breakthrough. The outlines of a possible compromise emerged late Saturday night. Moving the vote without objection marked the first unified parliamentary move in a day fraught with just that.

Reid also expressed unbending confidence that President Obama would win on his core demand that the the nation's debt ceiling, currently $14.3 trillion, would be extended until 2013 -- long enough to avoid election-year pressures and to shield the fragile economy from market vagaries inflicted by the near-default drama that's played out over the past week.

"I'm optimistic there will be no short-term arrangement whatsoever," Reid said. "I'm also confident that reasonable people from both parties should be able to reach an agreement. I believe we should give them time to do so."

But the price for winning a long-term deal may be the exclusion of higher taxes from the process of lowering deficits to meet the $2.4 trillion, 10-year target established by both parties.

Negotiators told National Journal that progress was made on the toughest remaining issue -- a so-called trigger to ensure spending cuts of up to $2.4 trillion would, in fact, be instituted by a special committee established by the the debt-ceiling bills in the House and Senate.

Reid said it was necessary to delay the scheduled early-morning vote to give negotiators more time. Congressional sources said there were slender hopes that a deal could be struck before Asian stock markets open starting at 5 p.m.

Following the movement of the vote to later Sunday, Reid adjourned the Senate.

Reid's surprise appearance gave a bright glow to a day defined by clamp-jawed partisanship and pitched parliamentary battles on the House and Senate floor. There were even accusations of bad faith, misleading press conferences and seemingly false hopes of progress. Reid's announcement sliced through the day-long tension and suggested a path forward -- probably not without a few more bumps -- was now visible to the legislative titans who had been at each other's throats for most of the past 48 hours.

Earlier on Saturday, Reid summoned senators to the floor, where he excoriated Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, for offering what Reid said was an overly rosy picture of the state of negotiations with the White House. Using blunt language, he accused Republicans of refusing to compromise the face of an Aug. 2 default.

Fresh from a a 90-minute White House meeting with President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Reid described the situation this way: "The Speaker and Republican Leader should know that merely saying you have an agreement in front of television cameras doesn't make it so."

That was a reference to a press conference, held after a mid-day House vote, in which Boehner and McConnell confidently predicted the nation would avoid default, that negotiations had resumed and that differences would be resolved in short order.

"We are now fully engaged, the speaker and I, with the one person in America out of 307 million people can sign a bill into law," McConnell had said.

From the Senate floor with McConnell mere feet away, Reid alleged that his GOP counterpart was deliberately trying to create the impression of progress when, in reality, very little existed. "While the Republican Leader is holding meaningless press conferences, his members are reaching out to me and other members," Reid said. "They're coming forward with thoughtful ideas to try to move the process forward."

The back-and-forth between Reid and the Republican congressional leaders came shortly after the House defeated Reid's plan in a symbolic mid-Saturday vote, which followed the Friday Senate defeat of Boehner's competing plan. Democrats and the White House oppose the House plan because it does not guarantee the debt ceiling is raised through 2012 and includes what they say are unrealistic conditions for a second increase -- in particular the requirement that a balanced budget amendment be sent to the states before the second increase is approved. The support for the amendment does not exist in either chamber.
Boehner and McConnell appeared before reporters at a mid-afternoon press conference to offer reassurances that the United States will not default on its debt for the first time in history. McConnell said he has spoken with both Obama and Vice President Biden this afternoon and have begun negotiation a deal. "I am confident and optimistic we're going to get an agreement," he said. Added Boehner: "Despite our differences, we're dealing with reasonable, responsible people who want this crisis to end as quickly as possible."

Congress is working through the weekend but the action centers now in the Senate, where Reid is working to either find a workable compromise with McConnell, or appeal to enough Republican senators to give Democrats the 60 votes they need to move forward on Reid's plan. The former is more likely than the latter, after McConnell sent a letter to Reid announced that 43 GOP senators stand in opposition to his proposal. Four Republican senators did not sign it: Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Olympia Snowe, R-Me., Susan Collins, R-Me., and Scott Brown, R-Mass.

Reid expressed skepticism about the letter, telling reporters that a number of the senators signing it "have already agreed to work with us."

The incendiary rhetoric surrounding the Boehner and Reid plans belies the fact that the two proposals are not miles apart in substance, which would suggest a compromise is reachable.

One key difference between the Boehner and Reid measures: the timetable. Boehner would require another vote to raise the debt ceiling early next year only if Congress meets two conditions: enacting further deficit reduction and sending a balanced budget amendment to the states, despite the fact that the constitutional amendment does not have the support necessary to emerge from either chamber. The Reid bill would provide mechanisms--first authored by McConnell--to allow for enough money to lift the debt ceiling through the next election.

But the politics of the debate, and the pressure from the GOP's right flank to hold the line against the Democrats, has fueled a noxious atmosphere on Capitol Hill. "We cannot unite America if we divide the movement," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., a long shot 2012 presidential contender, on the difficult dynamics within his party. "Consequently the time has come for the tea party to grow up and the Republican Party to wake up and serve and save this great nation."

The political stakes were high for Democrats as well with Obama facing reelection in a sour economic climate and Democrats' Senate majority up for grabs next year.

If McConnell and Reid do in fact fail to compromise, and Reid can't appeal to seven Republicans to side with Democrats on cloture, the Senate will push the nation closer to default with a looming Tuesday deadline.

The gridlock has spurred at least one top lawmaker to seek introspection. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he spent three hours at D.C.'s Eastern Market -- an outdoor produce market near the Capitol -- and drank coffee. "I wanted to get away from this place and spend a few minutes reflecting on something other than the give and take of the political debate," Durbin said. "I sat on a bench for about three hours, just watching people walk by - trying to clear my mind."

Durbin's mind may be clear but the legislative situation isn't -- except to say it remains visibly stuck. There is every indication efforts are underway invisibly to get it unstuck, but the fruits of those labors remain hidden. And there's not much time left for lawmakers to drink coffee and people-watch on a lazy Saturday morning.

Most Popular

Five days after Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico, its devastating impact is becoming clearer.

Five days after Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico, its devastating impact is becoming clearer. Most of the U.S. territory currently has no electricity or running water, fewer than 250 of the island’s 1,600 cellphone towers are operational, and damaged ports, roads, and airports are slowing the arrival and transport of aid. Communication has been severely limited and some remote towns are only now being contacted. Jenniffer Gonzalez, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, told the Associated Press that Hurricane Maria has set the island back decades.

A small group of programmers wants to change how we code—before catastrophe strikes.

There were six hours during the night of April 10, 2014, when the entire population of Washington State had no 911 service. People who called for help got a busy signal. One Seattle woman dialed 911 at least 37 times while a stranger was trying to break into her house. When he finally crawled into her living room through a window, she picked up a kitchen knife. The man fled.

The 911 outage, at the time the largest ever reported, was traced to software running on a server in Englewood, Colorado. Operated by a systems provider named Intrado, the server kept a running counter of how many calls it had routed to 911 dispatchers around the country. Intrado programmers had set a threshold for how high the counter could go. They picked a number in the millions.

The greatest threats to free speech in America come from the state, not from activists on college campuses.

The American left is waging war on free speech. That’s the consensus from center-left to far right; even Nazis and white supremacists seek to wave the First Amendment like a bloody shirt. But the greatest contemporary threat to free speech comes not from antifa radicals or campus leftists, but from a president prepared to use the power and authority of government to chill or suppress controversial speech, and the political movement that put him in office, and now applauds and extends his efforts.

The most frequently cited examples of the left-wing war on free speech are the protests against right-wing speakers that occur on elite college campuses, some of which have turned violent.New York’s Jonathan Chait has described the protests as a “war on the liberal mind” and the “manifestation of a serious ideological challenge to liberalism—less serious than the threat from the right, but equally necessary to defeat.” Most right-wing critiques fail to make such ideological distinctions, and are far more apocalyptic—some have unironically proposed state laws that define how universities are and are not allowed to govern themselves in the name of defending free speech.

A growing body of research debunks the idea that school quality is the main determinant of economic mobility.

One of the most commonly taught stories American schoolchildren learn is that of Ragged Dick, Horatio Alger’s 19th-century tale of a poor, ambitious teenaged boy in New York City who works hard and eventually secures himself a respectable, middle-class life. This “rags to riches” tale embodies one of America’s most sacred narratives: that no matter who you are, what your parents do, or where you grow up, with enough education and hard work, you too can rise the economic ladder.

A body of research has since emerged to challenge this national story, casting the United States not as a meritocracy but as a country where castes are reinforced by factors like the race of one’s childhood neighbors and how unequally income is distributed throughout society. One such study was published in 2014, by a team of economists led by Stanford’s Raj Chetty. After analyzing federal income tax records for millions of Americans, and studying, for the first time, the direct relationship between a child’s earnings and that of their parents, they determined that the chances of a child growing up at the bottom of the national income distribution to ever one day reach the top actually varies greatly by geography. For example, they found that a poor child raised in San Jose, or Salt Lake City, has a much greater chance of reaching the top than a poor child raised in Baltimore, or Charlotte. They couldn’t say exactly why, but they concluded that five correlated factors—segregation, family structure, income inequality, local school quality, and social capital—were likely to make a difference. Their conclusion: America is land of opportunity for some. For others, much less so.

One hundred years ago, a retail giant that shipped millions of products by mail moved swiftly into the brick-and-mortar business, changing it forever. Is that happening again?

Amazon comes to conquer brick-and-mortar retail, not to bury it. In the last two years, the company has opened 11 physical bookstores. This summer, it bought Whole Foods and its 400 grocery locations. And last week, the company announced a partnership with Kohl’s to allow returns at the physical retailer’s stores.

Why is Amazon looking more and more like an old-fashioned retailer? The company’s do-it-all corporate strategy adheres to a familiar playbook—that of Sears, Roebuck & Company. Sears might seem like a zombie today, but it’s easy to forget how transformative the company was exactly 100 years ago, when it, too, was capitalizing on a mail-to-consumer business to establish a physical retail presence.

The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy.

It is insufficient to statethe obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit.

National Geographic Magazine has opened its annual photo contest, with the deadline for submissions coming up on November 17.

National Geographic Magazine has opened its annual photo contest for 2017, with the deadline for submissions coming up on November 17. The Grand Prize Winner will receive $10,000 (USD), publication in National Geographic Magazine and a feature on National Geographic’s Instagram account. The folks at National Geographic were, once more, kind enough to let me choose among the contest entries so far for display here. The captions below were written by the individual photographers, and lightly edited for style.

What the Trump administration has been threatening is not a “preemptive strike.”

Donald Trump lies so frequently and so brazenly that it’s easy to forget that there are political untruths he did not invent. Sometimes, he builds on falsehoods that predated his election, and that enjoy currency among the very institutions that generally restrain his power.

That’s the case in the debate over North Korea. On Monday, The New York Timesdeclared that “the United States has repeatedly suggested in recent months” that it “could threaten pre-emptive military action” against North Korea. On Sunday, The Washington Post—after asking Americans whether they would “support or oppose the U.S. bombing North Korean military targets” in order “to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons”—announced that “Two-thirds of Americans oppose launching a preemptive military strike.” Citing the Post’s findings, The New York Times the same day reported that Americans are “deeply opposed to the kind of pre-emptive military strike” that Trump “has seemed eager to threaten.”

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”

Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy sparred with Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar on CNN hours after their bill dismantling Obamacare appeared to collapse.

Ordinarily, you debate to stave off defeat. But for Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy on Monday night, the defeat came first.

By the time the two GOP senators stepped on CNN’s stage Monday night for a prime-time debate over their health-care proposal, they knew they had already lost.

A few hours earlier, Senator Susan Collins became the third Republican to formally reject the pair’s legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, effectively killing its chances for passage through the Senate this week. Graham and Cassidy had hoped to use the forum to make a closing argument for their plan, and to line it up against Senator Bernie Sanders and his call for a single-payer, “Medicare-for-All” health-care system. Instead, the two senators found themselves defending a proposal that was no less hypothetical—and probably much less popular—than Sanders’s supposed liberal fantasy.